Should sperm donors be able to hide their identitiy and waive responsibilities?

Judging from the number of adult offspring searching for their blood relative the answer is no.

http://www.searchingformyspermdonorfather.org/

Perhaps it is time to stop just thinking of sperm donation as "generous", and start looking at the longer term implications for future generations.
Various medical conditions and mental illnesses are hereditary and many of us also have an intangible desire to know our biological ancestry, as witnessed by the popularity of tracing family trees.
It came to light recently that Octomom's donor (she had fourteen children by IVF using sperm from this person) had waived recognition of the last eight babies because they were conceived "behind his back". Understandable from his point of view but pretty shabby for the octuplets.
Lots of people such as Octomom profess to love "babies" but forget that childhood is a relatively short stage of life.
I say no donation should be made without agreeing to contact with future offspring.

I haven't fully formulated a broadly-considered opinion on this issue, (ie it's not the same as buying a car where you can just add up the pros and cons due to a failure to respect humanity as its own end) ...

... but the utilitarian side of me thinks that given there is no global shortage of children, and a global excess of orphans, IVF should be banned in initial favour of adoption - and probably banned altogether, since a smaller population would be of greater general utility to the constituents.

my opinion is if some one is donating sperm is not covering boundaries of a father . a father has to do a lot to uplift his children for birth to adult. It is the female who is taking sperm and taking responsibility of the child. Sperm donation does not make seance that the donner is father if he is not full filling other responsibilities

I support the views expressed in the last two posts. IVF and all that is really quite a selfish act, implying that "my" potential child is worth more than existing typically parentless babies.

Its true that a parental role can be played by any committed and able volunteer. However the substitute parent is not always the "real deal" in the mind of the adult adoptee or IVF concieved individual. Having an X factor instead of a parent even after the benefit of a caring upbringing does not satisfy the need to know their historical and biological roots. Its a feeling of fundamental disconnection shared by the stolen generation. For the benefit of non Australians "stolen generation" is a term used to describe the colonial system of forcibly removing Aborigine children from their parents and placing them in a foster home with a white Australian family in the hope they could wean them away from their native culture.

I have a friend who adopted two nephews when they were four and nine. Their mother had run off with a boyfriend and their father had committed suicide. In my opinion, a mother isn't the woman who contributed an egg and a father isn't the man that produced sperm. It's the two people who nuture and care for the child. Three years ago, when the boys were 14 and 9, their maternal grandmother called and demanded the boys come spend Christmas with her and her daughter. The older boy said he'd prefer spending Christmas with his family.

Assume a fifteen-year old girl has a baby and puts the child up for adoption. The baby goes to a good couple who care for the child. The biological mother goes on and finishes high school college. She has a career, a marriage, children. Now, whose personal interests dominate. The child, who is now an adult, and wants to meet his "real" mother or the mother who placed a child she couldn't care for with a loving family and now has a life of her own?

I do think there is some reason to have medical records for biological parents available but that's all.

Patrick
Its not my opinion that kids should be raised by unstable or violent parents, just because they are related by blood. However they should not be denied the knowlege of where they come from and how they fit into world history. There are not many people who are so shameful and repulsive that a child should be denied all knowlege of their existence for their entire life.
I'll come clean and admit I got the idea of this post from watching many episodes of "Who do you think you are?"
Its a TV show where famous English or Australians have their family trees traced professionally and visit the homes of their ancestors.
The mayor of London, Boris Johnston certainly bears the hallmarks of his ancestry, a past that would have been sad to lose touch with should he have been conceived by an IVF donation.
http://www.bbcwhodoyouthinkyouaremagazi ... is-johnson
Learning of Boris's genetic history makes his larger than life persona understandable.
There is also a phenomena where heart transplant patients gain the tastes and memories of the previous owner of the heart, showing there's more to DNA then we presently understand.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/24934/

Certainly people should have access to the medical record of the donor and of his ancestors as far as this may be possible. There may well be apattern of deaths, for example, in the family which points to a medical problem that does not necessarily show up in DNA. I think also that people have a right to know their ancestors, however this is not of great importance.
People do like to know and I've freely shared the results of my research with other family members even to the 'n'th degree of removal; so far we're back to one Fraewing of Saxony who was born in AD 350 but as not much else is known about him, apart from him having fathered a line of Kings of Wessex, he remains but a vague historical figure.

"Should sperm donors be able to hide their identitiy and waive responsibilities?"

Person "A" is a healthy adult male and donates sperm to a laboratory. A couple who cannot conceive contract to use the sperm. A healthy baby results.

What are the responsibilities of the donor? Personally, I can't think of any.

Well they are responsible for providing sperm that has resulted in a child being born. Therefore they have a responsibility to that child just as any father does. Just because we have created an artificial situation where the man is able to get a woman pregnant without knowing her does not relieve him of any responsibility. After all, how different is this from drunken man having a one night stand resulting in a child? Either way, him choosing to 'spread his seed' has resulted in a child. In my view he is responsible for that child, just like any other father.

The child has a right to know who their biological father is and has a right to contact him if s/he wants to. The father who raises the child is their adopted father, not their biological one. A child has the right to know who there biological father is. Any adult man who chooses to engage in activities that could result in a woman becoming pregnant with his child has a responsibility to that child.

Airzone said, "IVF and all that is really quite a selfish act, implying that "my" potential child is worth more than existing typically parentless babies."

Under this logic Airzone, no one would have babies and everyone would adopt.

arry: "Well they are responsible for providing sperm that has resulted in a child being born. Therefore they have a responsibility to that child just as any father does. Just because we have created an artificial situation where the man is able to get a woman pregnant without knowing her does not relieve him of any responsibility."

So, providing a sperm is sufficient for responsibility? How about providing an egg? Should the birth mother decide she doesn't want to nuture or care for the baby the responsibility should default to the egg donor?

The responsibility lies with the person who chooses to use the sperm or the egg.

arry wrote:

Airzone said, "IVF and all that is really quite a selfish act, implying that "my" potential child is worth more than existing typically parentless babies."

Under this logic Airzone, no one would have babies and everyone would adopt.

Yes, almost. My logic implies that until there are no more uncared for babies, then new babies are not "required". So my question is, Is it ethical to have more children when there are many available in such desperate need of nurturing etc?

This is a theoretical discussion, and for the sake of discussion, practicalities have been put aside.

Of course, what I am really suggesting is that the world is overpopulated and IVF is not in the best interest of the human race as a whole and is only thought by some to be in their individual best interest at the expense of the human race as a whole.

[quote="patrickt"]
Person "A" is a healthy adult male and donates sperm to a laboratory. A couple who cannot conceive contract to use the sperm. A healthy baby results.
What are the responsibilities of the donor? Personally, I can't think of any.[/quote

The birth of a healthy baby is the end of one story, but the beginning of another. It begins the life of the adult individual, who should be entitled to explore their biology and ancestry like everyone else, as should their own future offspring.
Right now, perhaps because we are so enamoured with the wonder of our own technology and satisfying the needs of couples, we have allowed everyone to play "mothers and fathers" with everyone else's DNA. In future times this might not seem such a wise thing to have done.
Only forty years ago it was still thought a good solution to fast track Aboriginal children to conformity with our culture by removing them from their kith and kin and placing them in an all white environment.
The long term damage to the native people themselves and as a result our own culture was not recognised until after the damage was well and truly done.
I say if sperm and egg donations are to be made some information and contact, if not the offer of friendship must be extended to the resulting child. Anything less is not good enough.

Christine: "I say if sperm and egg donations are to be made some information and contact, if not the offer of friendship must be extended to the resulting child. Anything less is not good enough."

In our society now if an egg and sperm merge the results isn't even entitled to life.

If a woman sincerely wants a baby and her husband cannot produce one and she accepts a sperm donor, they are looking for a baby they can raise. Not a best buddy and surrogate father or best friend for the child. I think medical information should be available. Anything else should be up to the people involved. The child is fortunate to have a life and people who love him.

There is plenty of evidence that a person who produces a sperm or an egg is not necessarily someone you'd even want you child to meet.

I see no similarity between this and the forcible removal of children from the home and family to be raised in a government or church-run facility.

Interesting question. At the end of the day, this should be viewed as similar to adoption. If the man's sperm/ woman's eggs are used for to create a baby then they are the biological parents of that baby. The baby should be able to access details on their parents. Fundamentally, this is about personal responsibility. From an ethical standpoint, if you decide to make a child- in whatever context- you have a responsibility to that child.

I agree airzone that in an ideal world no one would have a child until all the sick/ hungry etc. children had been adopted. But in a practical world this is clearly impossible.

arry wrote:

... I agree airzone that in an ideal world no one would have a child until all the sick/ hungry etc. children had been adopted. But in a practical world this is clearly impossible.

True, true. Ideals are never 100% achievable, but we should try to head in that direction anyway.

All I hope, is that before attempting to become an IVF parent, potential parents should consider the ethical implications of adoption and other alternatives, rather than brininging another person into an overpopulated world. Only the potential parents can make the decision although we all can recall China's one child policy which maybe was not such a bad policy.

Perhaps if the meaning of ethics/values and the implications of various choices were taught in school this could become second nature for the next generation? But that is for discussion in another thread.

Patrick,
If you wouldn't want your child to meet him maybe it would be best to give him a miss as donor althogether as some qualities are bound to be passed on. Murphy's law says it would be the worst ones!

What do you mean when you say fertilised eggs are presently not entitled to life?

"What do you mean when you say fertilised eggs are presently not entitled to life?"

Abortion.

'Fertilised eggs are not entitled to life'.

What does this actually mean? You mean they are not protected the same way as a live, kicking and breathing human baby is. Yes, that is correct. How is this relevant?

This is about facing up to your choices- individual responsibility. If you choose to donate sperm, you have the responsibility to face the consequences of your actions.

I think the key question here is: what is best for the child?

If the child wants to know who their father is, they have a right to know, and the father- like any father- has a responsibility to make themselves available and ideally supportive toward that child. Any other course of action is unethical.